CW: suicide; ableism; abuse; coercion
Introduction
The debate surrounding assisted suicide has returned to the Scottish Parliament. The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill (henceforth “the ADTIA Bill” or “the Bill”) passed its first stage on 13 May 2025 with the aim of “[providing] terminally ill adults […] assistance to voluntarily end their own lives” (McArthur, 2024). While the complexity of the debate surrounding assisted suicide is appreciated, this bulletin is intended to impress on legislators deciding on the future of this bill the disastrous impact this legislation could have on disabled people.
While most proponents of assisted suicide, and the Bill itself, don’t directly mention disability or disabled people, it is important to realise that the broad, unclear definition in the ADTIA Bill will inherently include disabled people. Defining “a person [as] terminally ill if they have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death” (McArthur, 2024, sec. 2) includes not only people suffering from illnesses like cancer, which is often itself a disability under the Equality Act 2010 (UK Government, 2010, pt. 2(1)(6)(1)), but also people with other disabilities such as MND. It’s with this in mind that this bulletin argues the ableist potential of this policy.
While there are numerous arguments against the ADTIA Bill, this bulletin highlights two main points:
- It shifts the Government’s focus away from fixing the societal barriers required for an accessible society, in which disabled people can thrive, to creating legal hierarchies of worthiness.
- It does not, and cannot, contain adequate protections against abuse.
Wrong priority
There are multiple models through which to examine disability. The most common model among sociologists is the social model of disability, which dictates that, while disabled people have impairments which may be treated or cured by medical specialists, the ‘creation’ of one’s disability is the external, societal barriers placed on an impaired individual. Disabled people are therefore disabled not by their impairment, but by the society in which they live, and this can be eased and ameliorated through social change (Oliver, 1990).
Similarly, the human rights model of disability builds upon the social model, highlighting more clearly the inherent dignity of disabled individuals and the state’s role in fixing the ‘problem’ of disability, “tackl[ing] socially created obstacles in order to ensure full respect for the dignity and equal rights of all persons.” (Quinn et al., 2002, p.24). These models are useful for understanding your role and responsibility as policymakers.
Acknowledging the responsibility of the state in making life easier for disabled people, Scotland and the UK are signatories of the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCPRD) and its Optional Protocol. The UNCRPD sets out a list of principles “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity” (United Nations, 2006, art. 1). Additionally, detailing its plan to deliver on the UNCRPD, the Scottish Government released the A fairer Scotland for disabled people report in 2016.
Of particular interest when discussing assisted suicide is article 10 of the UNCRPD, Right to Life. This article states that “every human being has the inherent right to life and [that parties] shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others” (United Nations, 2006). Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees “the right to life, liberty and the security of person” (United Nations, 1948).
Many believe that assisted dying should only be an option when “all other options are exhausted” (The Lancet, 2024). Similarly, Liam MacArthur MSP sponsored the ADTIA Bill because “[h]e does not believe that terminally ill adults should have no alternative to the prospect of a prolonged, painful and traumatic death” (The Scottish Parliament – Pàrlamaid na h-Alba, n.d.). This relies, however, on the false presumption that all other alternatives are already perfect, accessible and have been properly exhausted.
This Scottish Government has directly outlined its desire to “remove the barriers that stop people from enjoying equal access to full citizenship” and published a progress report to the 2016 A fairer Scotland for disabled people report, in which it acknowledges that “in order for Scotland to be a fairer place for everyone there is a lot of work that needs to happen” (n.d.; 2021). Last year, the Scottish Government also asserted the wish that “adults and children in Scotland have more equitable access to well-coordinated, timely and high-quality palliative care” by 2030 (Scottish Government – Riaghaltas na h-Alba, 2024, p.6). This current lack in available care is supported by a study conducted by Marie Curie and the London School of Economics, which showed that 1 in 4 Scots who required palliative care didn’t have access to it (2016). Coupled with the “pressure […] on our NHS and social care system” (Scottish Government – Riaghaltas na h-Alba, 2024, p.2), it would seem that there is acknowledgement that Scotland’s standard of social, health and palliative care is imperfect. It therefore cannot be the case that all alternatives have been properly exhausted, and if better alternatives aren’t provided to disabled people, then they’re not being offered a truly free choice.
Instead of spending time and energy that could be spent improving the state of current health and social care, the ADTIA Bill distracts from efforts to improve existing solutions for the problems disabled people face. While important steps have been taken, such as the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill, the Palliative Care Strategy and the Right to Palliative Care (Scotland) Bill, we are currently not at a place where disabled people have a free choice or access to all other alternatives. If a person doesn’t have access to adequate health, social or palliative care—which is a human right under the UNCRPD, in particular article 25, Health, and article 28, Adequate standard of living and social protection (United Nations, 2006)—, but does have access to assisted suicide, might the choice of ending their life become more appealing than living? This inequality of access was highlighted by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, who warned that “[u]neven availability and quality of palliative care across the UK could mean that assisted dying exacerbates a ‘postcode lottery’ for those living with terminal illnesses” (2024).
Moreover, many disabled people fear that assisted suicide will replace quality health and palliative care or become an easier option (Better Off Dead?, 2024), or fear entering palliative care in case they are “drugged to death” (Twycross, 2024). While the ADTIA Bill includes safeguards against coercion, their efficacy is examined and debated in the next section. Given these concerns, the Bill could lead to a decrease in the people who don’t want assisted suicide accessing quality health and palliative care, out of fear or mistrust.
From a social level, there is still much to be done to advance disabled people’s ability to live full and independent lives. Inclusion Scotland asserts that “[s]ocial care support [in Scotland] is in crisis” (2023, p.8). The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is deeply concerned that “the [Personal Independence Payment/Adult Disability Payment] is not sufficient to cover the extra costs of living with disabilities” (2024, p.11), at a time when employment rates for disabled people remain significantly lower than that of our non-disabled counterparts (54% and 82%) (Office for National Statistics, 2025). Ableist hate crime charges in Scotland increased by 15% between 2022-23 and 2023-24, with the last decade described as “an almost unbroken upward trend” (Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, 2025). It is the Scottish Parliament’s obligation under the UNCRPD to “protect persons with disabilities […] from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse” and to commit to “the continuous improvement of living conditions” (United Nations, 2006, arts. 16 and 28 respectively). Steps toward assisted suicide shifts the Government’s focus and attention, at least to a certain extent, from providing a good quality of life to providing death. Instead of prioritising ways in which disabled people can die, you should be committing to making sure that disabled people are first able to live full, independent lives.
Any legislation on assisted suicide stands in direct contradiction to your commitment to disabled people’s right to life.It is hypocritical to affirm that “every human being has the inherent right to life” (United Nations, 2006, art. 10) while legislating for some people to unnaturally and prematurely end theirs, especially in a society where structural barriers and inequalities continue to affect disabled people’s ability to live.
It should not be the role of a parliament to legislate ways for disabled people to leave this world; rather, parliaments should recognise their obligations to fixing the ‘problem’ of disability, per the social and human rights models of disability, and commit their energy to making disabled people’s time on this earth as fulfilling and rewarding as possible. Yet, even if all disabled people’s social and health needs have been met, the risks that assisted suicide pose to disabled people are still unavoidable and unacceptable.
Adequate protections are impossible
Proponents of assisted suicide may say that if a disabled person doesn’t want to die by assisted suicide, then they can simply choose not to; after all, the ADTIA Bill has supposedly been designed with adequate safeguards to ensure that the person requesting to die by assisted suicide make “the declaration voluntarily and [that the person] has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it”(McArthur, 2024, p.3). And if a person wishes to die by assisted suicide, isn’t it a rejection of their right to “individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices” (United Nations, 2006, sec. 3(a)) to deny them this option?
The risk of coercion and abuse of this Bill is seemingly considered negligible or nil[1], but despite the best of intentions and safeguards, it is impossible to fully alleviate critics’ concerns and protect the most vulnerable groups in our society from the Bill. The Bill does contain provisions to ensure that people have the legal and mental capacity to make the decision (McArthur, 2024, 3(2)), and two assessments to verify the person “made the declaration voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it” (McArthur, 2024, 6(4)(c)), but while these reduce the risk of abuse, they do not eliminate it entirely.
A 2018-20 study found that, while at least 16.5% of all adults had experienced domestic abuse[2], only 10% of victims told their doctor, with 29% reported having told no-one (The Scottish Government, 2021). Additionally, some victims of abuse are not ready to acknowledge the abuse they’re facing, even recognise it happening (The Crown Prosecution Service, 2023), or are invested in concealing it (Donaldson et al., 2025). Furthermore, given that 16-year-olds could access assisted suicide under the proposed Bill, they may lack the emotional maturity to acknowledge any coercion (or indeed the seriousness and totality of the decision to die by assisted suicide).
Assuming that doctors will be able to detect every case of unreported coercion while “protecting all others” (Scottish Parliament Non-Government Bills Unit, 2024, sec. 36) is also naïve. Doctors are human, and therefore fallible. To illustrate this, a study of 834 autopsy reports comparing clinical diagnoses and postmortem findings found that, despite modern medicine, there was a clinical error rate of 18.5% (Tejerina et al., 2012). Additionally, the intentional use of ambiguous and undefined language in the text, e.g. “advanced […] illness […] that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death” (McArthur, 2024, sec. 2, italics added for emphasis), may result in people being granted assisted suicide before the Bill’s proposer intends. Given the gravity and irreversibility of ‘getting it wrong’, proponents of the Bill need to be honest and agree on a margin of error, i.e. people who incorrectly die, they are content with.
Additional external social factors such as quality of social care and finances can also play a role in a person’s decision, and don’t seem to have been considered in the Bill. In Canada, a man who qualified for assisted suicide due to disability requested, and was granted, assistance in dying when faced with homelessness, only deciding against it after an improvement in socioeconomic status (Marcus, 2022). This isn’t an isolated incident either, with even proponents of assisted suicide and an official report in Canada identifying cases of abuse and mistaken deaths (MAiD Death Review Committee, 2024; Henderson, 2024). If a person is a paying patient in a Scottish care home, has a “terminal illness” (per McArthur, 2024, sec. 2) and is concerned about how much will be left to their children after care home fees, will the person be eligible under the ADTIA Bill? Or what if the person doesn’t have adequate social care to live a high-quality, independent life – a human right under article 28 of the UNCRPD, the Right to adequate standard of living and social protection (United Nations, 2006) – and decides that assisted suicide is their best option? Is this a “settled, voluntary choice to end their life” and “of their own free will, without coercion or undue pressure” (Scottish Parliament Non-Government Bills Unit, 2024, sec. 31)? How can doctors accurately assess that a person isn’t using the Bill purely to escape socioeconomic hardship?
While numbers aren’t available for Scotland, in England and Wales disabled people are three times more likely to be victims of domestic abuse than non-disabled people (Office for National Statistics, 2022). Assuming similar rates for Scotland, the people this Bill is designed to help are among the most vulnerable to its ramifications. The ADTIA Bill fails to recognise the complexity and multitude of risks it can cause, and it is unable to provide adequate safeguards against external coercion to protect all disabled people’s lives. Given this danger, we must consider proportionality when comparing the ‘freedom to make one’s choices’ with the right to life; since the consequences of abuse are so grave, the right to choice under article 3, General principles, of the UNCRPD should be considered a qualified right and not overrule other protections for disabled people, such as article 10’s Right to Life (United Nations, 2006; Quinn et al., 2021).
Additionally, the language often associated with the assisted suicide movement is of particular concern to disabled people and risks instances of internal coercion. According to the Bill’s Policy Memorandum, assisted suicide is a way to “afford the person autonomy, dignity and control” in death, avoiding “the existential pain, suffering and symptoms associated with terminal illness” (Scottish Parliament Non-Government Bills Unit, 2024). The wish to have dignity and be without pain and suffering is not unfathomable, but we should be very careful with viewing assisted suicide as an appropriate way of achieving this.
Many disabled people are unwillingly – and often falsely – characterised as ‘in pain’, ‘suffering’ and ‘undignified’ by non-disabled people who pity us, tell us they couldn’t bear to live our lives or even offer to help us kill ourselves (Better Off Dead?, 2024). This is a prevalent stigma in Scotland and the wider UK: that disability always entails pain, suffering and indignity, and that these values make one’s life less worthy and should be alleviated.
There are very real concerns that this stigma will impact one’s decision to request assisted suicide; in a multiple choice survey of people who died by assisted suicide in Oregon in 2024, a majority of people said that a fear of losing autonomy and dignity impacted their decision (88.6% and 63.6% respectively), with a large percentage also citing a sense of being a “[b]urden on family, friends/caregivers” (Oregon Health Authority, 2025). By legislating assisted suicide, we run the risk of not only proliferating this stigma further in society, but also codifying it within our legal system, creating a system where disabled people’s lives are perceived as less worthy of life than our non-disabled peers. It is possible this could lead to a ‘slippery slope’; if it is acceptable that pain and suffering are legitimate reasons to end one’s life, and the notions of pain, suffering and disability are entangled, then why wouldn’t disability be a legitimate reason to die, too?
United Nations (UN) experts back this concern, saying that assisted suicide legislation “would institutionalize and legally authorize ableism” (Quinn et al., 2021). There are also concerns that, in light of existing institutional ableism within the medical field (Inclusion Scotland, 2025), which includes blanket Do Not Resuscitate orders being placed on disabled people during Covid (Reed, 2024), this will sow further distrust between disabled people and medical professionals (Better Off Dead?, 2024).
Furthermore, there are legitimate concerns that assisted suicide will later be offered to a wider range of people. In Belgium, assisted suicide and euthanasia were made available to adults over 18 in 2002, but after a campaign, these were extended to children of any age in 2013 (Ministère de la Justice, 2002; BBC News, 2013). And after the UN expressed concerns over Canada’s legalisation of assisted suicide in 2016, the Canadian Government assured that safeguards were in place to “[avoid] encouraging negative perceptions of the quality of life of persons who are elderly, ill or disabled” and “[protect] vulnerable people from being induced to die in moments of weakness” (Government of Canada, 2017). The law was subsequently expanded in 2021 to people whose death is not foreseeable, and will be made available to people whose only impairment is a mental illness in 2027 (Government of Canada, 2021).
No number of safeguards can absolutely protect the lives of all disabled people; introducing any assisted suicide legislation risks creating a two-tier system, in which disabled people’s lives are viewed as more expendable than non-disabled people’s lives. To respect your legal obligation to the protection of disabled people under the UNCRPD and UDHR, you must reject any bid to legalise assisted suicide.
Conclusion
Assisted suicide is a controversial subject, and there is much empathy to be had for both sides of the debate; whatever the outcome, this will impact real people with real difficulties. However, while we can sympathise with proponents of the ADTIA Bill, assisted suicide is still not an appropriate option for helping disabled people.
It’s a state’s responsibility to ensure that the human rights of its people are being respected. This includes making sure all people receive the necessary resources and protections to live a full, independent and equitable life. To legislate for people to end their life marks a moral and legal failing, incompatible with your duties to the right to life and right to adequate standard of living and social protection under the A fairer Scotland for disabled people report, UDHR and UNCRPD (United Nations, 1948; United Nations, 2006; Scottish Government – Riaghaltas na h-Alba, 2016).
Additionally, despite the included safeguards, disabled people and our lives will still be adversely put at risk by the Bill. We are already at a much higher risk of abuse and coercive behaviour than our non-disabled counterparts, and as evidenced above, doctors are likely to—unintentionally or otherwise—authorise assisted suicide in error. External stigma and prejudice, such as the notion of ‘being a burden’ as being something negative, will likely influence a person’s decision in choosing assisted suicide. There is also a significant risk of ableist rhetoric becoming entrenched in Scots law. Furthermore, no amount of safeguards can protect the Bill from being expanded at later.
To protect disabled people’s lives and honour your legal commitment to human rights, you must reject the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, as well as any future efforts to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland.
References
BBC News 2013. Belgium child euthanasia plan backed. BBC News. [Online]. [Accessed 6 July 2025]. Available from: //www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25364745.
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2024. Report on follow-up to the inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – Advance Unedited Version [Online]. United Nations. Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD%2FC%2FGBR%2FFUIR%2F1&Lang=en.
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service 2025. Hate Crime in Scotland 2024-25. Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. [Online]. [Accessed 4 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.copfs.gov.uk/publications/hate-crime-in-scotland-2024-25/.
Donaldson, A., Neal, M. and Albert Jones, D. 2025. ‘Too difficult’ or just too dangerous? The very real danger of coerced death under ‘assisted dying’ laws. University of Strathclyde. [Online]. [Accessed 30 June 2025]. Available from: https://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/lawschool/blog/theveryrealdangerofcoerceddeathunderassisteddyinglaws/.
Equality and Human Rights Commission 2024. Equality regulator advises Parliament on assisted dying bill. Equality and Human Rights Commission. [Online]. [Accessed 3 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/equality-regulator-advises-parliament-assisted-dying-bill.
Government of Canada 2021. Canada’s medical assistance in dying (MAID) law. [Accessed 6 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/bk-di.html#s2_2.
Government of Canada 2017. List of issues in relation to the initial report of Canada-Addendum Replies of Canada to the list of issues [Online]. [Accessed 29 June 2025]. Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD%2FC%2FCAN%2FQ%2F1%2FAdd.1&Lang=en.
Henderson, C. 2024. Assisted dying ‘abused’ in Canada, admits group that helped legalise it. The Telegraph. [Online]. [Accessed 6 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/10/26/assisted-dying-abused-canada-admits-group-legalised/.
Inclusion Scotland 2025. Press Release: Disabled People’s Organisations criticise “institutionalised ignorance” from an “ableist state” in the pandemic and say nothing has changed. Inclusion Scotland. [Online]. [Accessed 7 July 2025]. Available from: https://inclusionscotland.org/news/press-release-disabled-peoples-organisations-criticise-institutionalised-ignorance-from-an-ableist-state-in-the-pandemic-and-say-nothing-has-changed.
Inclusion Scotland 2023. Report for Scottish Human Rights Commission. Inclusion Scotland.
MAiD Death Review Committee 2024. MAiD Death Review Committee Report 2024 – 3 [Online]. MAiD Death Review Committee. [Accessed 5 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.ocswssw.org/wp-content/uploads/MAiD-Death-Review-Committee-Report-2024.pdf.
Marcus, J. 2022. Canadian man applies for euthanasia because he can’t afford a home. The Independent. [Online]. [Accessed 5 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-euthansia-maid-gofundme-homeless-b2228890.html.
Marie Curie 2016. Enough for everyone: Challenging inequalities in palliative care [Online]. Marie Curie. [Accessed 3 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.mariecurie.org.uk/globalassets/media/documents/policy/policy-publications/challenging-inequities-in-palliative-care.pdf.
McArthur, L. 2024. Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill [Online]. [Accessed 12 June 2025]. Available from: https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s6-bills/assisted-dying-for-terminally-ill-adults-scotland-bill/introduction/bill-as-introduced.pdf.
Ministère de la Justice 2002. Loi relative à l’euthanasie [Online]. [Accessed 6 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi/article.pl?language=fr&sum_date=2002-06-22&lg_txt=f&pd_search=2002-06-22&s_editie=&numac_search=2002009590&caller=&2002009590=&view_numac=2002009590n.
Office for National Statistics 2022. Disability and crime. [Accessed 5 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/disability/datasets/disabilityandcrime.
Office for National Statistics 2025. Labour market status of disabled people. [Accessed 4 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/labourmarketstatusofdisabledpeoplea08.
Oliver, M. 1990. Disability Definitions: the Politics of Meaning In: The Politics of Disablement [Online]. London: Macmillan Education UK, pp.1–11. [Accessed 1 October 2024]. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1_1.
Oregon Health Authority 2025. 2024 Oregon Death with Dignity Act Data Summary [Online]. Oregon Health Authority. [Accessed 3 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Documents/year27.pdf.
Quinn, G., De Schutter, O. and Mahler, C. 2021. Disability is not a reason to sanction medically assisted dying – UN experts [Online]. United Nations. [Accessed 28 June 2025]. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/01/disability-not-reason-sanction-medically-assisted-dying-un-experts.
Quinn, G., Degener, T., Kenna, P., Kilkelly, D.U. and Quinlivan, S. 2002. Human Rights and Disability: The current use and future potential of United Nations human rights instruments in the context of disability. New York and Geneva: United Nations.
Reed, J. 2024. NHS trust put in place do-not-resuscitate rule, Covid inquiry told. BBC News. [Online]. [Accessed 5 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd98vpxgp7ko.
Routh, J. 2024. Better Off Dead? [Online]. BBC. [Accessed 15 June 2025]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001z8wc/better-off-dead.
Scottish Government – Riaghaltas na h-Alba 2016. A fairer Scotland for disabled people: our delivery plan to 2021 for the United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.
Scottish Government – Riaghaltas na h-Alba 2024. Palliative Care Matters for All. Working together to improve life, health and care for people of all ages living with serious illnesses and health conditions or dying in Scotland.
Scottish Government – Riaghaltas na h-Alba 2021. Progress report: a fairer Scotland for disabled people. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.
Scottish Government – Riaghaltas na h-Alba, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and Minister for Social Care and Mental Wellbeing n.d. Disabled people. [Accessed 30 June 2025]. Available from: https://www.gov.scot/policies/disabled-people/.
Scottish Parliament Non-Government Bills Unit 2024. Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Policy Memorandum [Online]. The Scottish Parliament | Pàrlamaid na h-Alba. [Accessed 5 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s6-bills/assisted-dying-for-terminally-ill-adults-scotland-bill/introduction/policy-memorandum-accessible.pdf.
Tejerina, E., Esteban, A., Fernández-Segoviano, P., María Rodríguez-Barbero, J., Gordo, F., Frutos-Vivar, F., Aramburu, J., Algaba, Á., Gonzalo Salcedo García, Ó. and Lorente, J.A. 2012. Clinical diagnoses and autopsy findings: Discrepancies in critically ill patients. Critical Care Medicine. 40(3), pp.842–846.
The Crown Prosecution Service 2023. Controlling or Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship. The Crown Prosecution Service. [Online]. [Accessed 5 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-intimate-or-family-relationship.
The Lancet 2024. Assisted dying needs a thoughtful and engaged dialogue. The Lancet. 403(10437), p.1603.
The Scottish Government 2021. Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2019/20: main findings. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.
The Scottish Parliament – Pàrlamaid na h-Alba n.d. Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Scotland Bill. The Scottish Parliament – Pàrlamaid na h-Alba. [Online]. [Accessed 1 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/s6/assisted-dying-for-terminally-ill-adults-scotland-bill.
Twycross, R. 2024. Assisted dying: principles, possibilities, and practicalities. An English physician’s perspective. BMC Palliative Care. 23(1), p.99.
UK Government 2010. Equality Act 2010 [Online]. [Accessed 22 October 2024]. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents.
United Nations 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [Online]. [Accessed 29 June 2025]. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities.
United Nations 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Online]. [Accessed 27 June 2025]. Available from: https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf.
[1] The Bill, and its memoranda, don’t acknowledge abuse or coercion as possible, and assume that the safeguards will protect against all such possible cases.
[2] This figure increases among certain intersectional identities, such as disabled women (The Scottish Government, 2021).